Alameda County Social Services Agency v. Aurora P.
241 Cal. App. 4th 1142
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Alameda County Social Services Agency filed dependency petitions in 2010 alleging physical and sexual abuse; children were initially removed but later reunified with Mother and placed on family maintenance.
- Over multiple status and family-maintenance review hearings (2011–2014), Agency reports documented Mother’s participation in services, some inconsistent therapy attendance, referrals that were largely evaluated out or inconclusive, and no outstanding safety concerns by 2014.
- At the July–August 2014 contested family-maintenance hearing the Agency recommended termination of dependency jurisdiction; Minors (through counsel) opposed and argued jurisdiction should continue.
- The juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction under Welfare & Institutions Code § 364(c), finding the Agency had not established by a preponderance that the conditions justifying jurisdiction persisted or were likely to persist.
- Minors appealed, raising (1) insufficiency of evidence, (2) failure to make an express finding on Mother’s participation in court-ordered treatment, and (3) failure to consider the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bore the burden of proof at a § 364(c) review when the Agency recommends termination? | Minors: Agency bears the burden regardless of recommendation. | Agency: Minors (opposing termination) bear the burden. | Held: The statutory baseline is mandatory termination; because Minors sought to upset that status quo they bore the preponderance burden. |
| Standard of appellate review when the party who bore the burden below (Minors) lost and appeals | Minors: substantial evidence review is appropriate. | Agency: I.W. failure‑of‑proof standard inapplicable; (agency aligned with termination). | Held: Apply failure‑of‑proof standard from In re I.W.: appellant must show the evidence compels a finding in their favor as a matter of law. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to retain jurisdiction | Minors: record shows ongoing risks and Mother’s inconsistent participation — should have retained jurisdiction. | Agency: record shows Mother met case‑plan objectives and no present safety concerns; termination supported. | Held: Minors failed to meet their burden; evidence does not compel retention and juvenile court’s decision affirmed. |
| Whether juvenile court required to make an express on‑the‑record finding that Mother failed to participate regularly in treatment (triggering prima facie evidence under § 364(c)) | Minors: Court erred by not making a threshold express finding. | Agency: statute does not require express finding; implied findings suffice and record supports them. | Held: No express finding required; court’s termination implies contrary finding and substantial evidence supports it. |
| Whether the court failed to consider children’s best interests | Minors: Court did not appear to address best interests and erred. | Agency: Issue forfeited below; record shows consideration and no reversible error. | Held: Issue forfeited and, in any event, Minors did not show the court failed to consider best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.W., 180 Cal.App.4th 1517 (Cal. Ct. App.) (failure‑of‑proof appellate standard when appellant bore burden below)
- In re D.B., 239 Cal.App.4th 1073 (Cal. Ct. App.) (substantial‑evidence review of § 364 orders where agency opposes termination)
- In re R.V., 61 Cal.4th 181 (Cal.) (statutory baseline/status‑quo analysis and burdens when statute presumes a result)
- Conservatorship of Hume, 140 Cal.App.4th 1385 (Cal. Ct. App.) (framework: burden of proof follows status quo/baseline)
- Fresno County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court, 122 Cal.App.4th 626 (Cal. Ct. App.) (placing burden on party seeking to avoid statute’s baseline preference)
- In re J.F., 228 Cal.App.4th 202 (Cal. Ct. App.) (recognizing § 364 allows parents/children to offer evidence though statute allocates burden to agency when it opposes termination)